A System of Midwifery

by Edward Rigby

There is no doubt that in England it has been peculiarly unsuccessful. Dr. Merriman has collected the results of 26 cases of Cæsarean operation: of these only 2 mothers and 11 children survived; thus out of 52 lives only 13 were saved. On the Continent it has been far more successful. Klein has collected with the greatest care 116 well authenticated cases, of which 90 terminated favourably; and Dr. Hull, in his Defence of the Cæsarean Operation, has recorded 112 cases, of which 69 were successful. M. Simon has not only collected a number of cases which were favourable, to the number of 70 or 72, but which were performed on a few women, “some of them having submitted to it three or four times, others five or six, and even as far as seven times, which if they were all true, would superabundantly prove that it is not essentially mortal.” (Baudelocque, transl. by Heath, § 2095.)

During the last fifteen or twenty years the operation has become remarkably successful in the hands of the German practitioners, so that there has been scarcely a journal of late from that part of the Continent which has not contained favourable cases of it. One of the most interesting instances of later years is that recorded by Dr. Michaelis, of Kiel, where the patient, a diminutive and very deformed woman, was operated upon four times:[97] the second operation was performed by the celebrated Wiedemann, and is stated to have been completed in less than five minutes, and without any extraordinary suffering on the part of the patient, who complained most when sutures were made for bringing the lips of the wound together. The uterus became adherent to the anterior wall of the abdomen, so that in the fourth operation the abdominal cavity was not even opened, the incision being made through the common cicatrix into the uterus.

There is every reason to suppose that the chief cause of its want of success in this country has been the delay in performing it. “In France and some other nations upon the European Continent,” says Dr. Hull, “the Cæsarean Operation has been and continues to be performed where British practitioners do not think it indicated; it is also had recourse to early, before the strength of the mother has been exhausted by the long continuance and frequent repetition of tormenting, though unavailing pains, and before her life is endangered by the accession of inflammation of the abdominal cavity. From this view of the matter we may reasonably expect that recoveries will be more frequent in France than in England and Scotland, where the reverse practice obtains. And it is from such cases as these, in which it is employed in France, that the value of the operation ought to be appreciated. Who could be sanguine in his expectation of a recovery under such circumstances as it has generally been resorted to in this country, namely, where the female has laboured for years under malacosteon (mollities ossium,) a disease hitherto in itself incurable; where she has been brought into imminent danger by previous inflammation of the intestines or other contents of the abdominal cavity, or been exhausted by labour of a week’s continuance or even longer.” (Hull’s Defence of the Cæsarean Operation.)[98]

The difficulty of deciding upon the operation according to the indications of the Continental practitioners, is much more perplexing than according to that which is followed in this country: the question here is, can the child under any circumstances be made to pass per vias naturales with safety to the mother? The impossibility of effecting this object is the sole guide for our decision. In using the operation as a means for preserving also the life of the child, we must not only feel certain that the child is alive, but that it is also capable of supporting life, before we can conscientiously undertake the operation upon such indications. This uncertainty as to the life or death of the child greatly increases the difficulty of deciding. Under circumstances where there is reason to believe that, although the child may be alive, it is nevertheless unable to prolong its existence for any time, and the pelvis so narrow that it can only be brought through the natural passage piecemeal, we are certainly not authorized in putting an adult and otherwise healthy mother into such imminent danger of her life for the sake of a child which is too weak to support existence. Circumstances may nevertheless occur where the pelvis is so narrow that the child cannot be brought even piecemeal through the natural passage: in this case, even if the child be dead, the operation becomes unavoidable.

Under the above-mentioned circumstances, it is the duty of the surgeon to perform the operation; and he can do it with the more confidence from the knowledge of many cases upon record where it has succeeded even under very unfavourable circumstances, and where it has been performed very awkwardly: moreover, it seems highly probable that the unfavourable results of this operation cannot often be attributed to the operation itself, but to other circumstances. Not unfrequently the uterus has been so bruised, irritated, and injured by the violent and repeated attempts to deliver by turning or the forceps, and the patient so exhausted, and brought into such a spasmodic and feverish state by the fruitless pains and vehement efforts, together with the anxiety and restlessness which must occur under such circumstances, that it is impossible for the operation to prove successful. Here it is an important rule that we should decide as soon as possible, whether she can be delivered by the natural passages or not: we should allow of no useless or forcible attempts to deliver her; and if these have been made, we should carefully examine whether the passages, &c. have been injured, and proceed to the operation without delay. Moreover, the patient can the more easily make up her mind to the operation, as she will suffer far less than from the fruitless efforts and attempts to deliver her by the natural passages. (Richter, Anfangsgründe der Wundarztneikunst, band vii. chap. 5.)

Although it is so important that we should lose no time, still nevertheless it does not appear desirable to operate before labour has commenced to any extent; for unless the os uteri has undergone a certain degree of dilatation, it will not afford a sufficiently free exit for liquor amnii, blood, lochia, which, by stagnating in the uterus after the operation, would soon become irritating and putrid, in which case they would be apt to drain through the wound into the abdominal cavity and create much mischief.[99]

Different modes of operating. The incision has been recommended to be made in different ways by different authors; but the highest authorities, as also later experience, combine in favour of that in the linea alba. Richter states, that one great advantage from making it in this direction is, that when the uterus contracts and sinks down into the pelvis, the incision in it still corresponds with that through the abdominal parietes, and therefore admits of a free discharge of pus, &c. through the external wound; whereas, if it have been made to one side, viz. at the outer edge of the rectus abdominis muscle, as recommended by Levret for the purpose of avoiding the placenta, the wound in the uterus when contracted ceases to correspond with it, and the discharge escapes into the abdominal cavity. Besides this the abdomen is usually more distended at the linea alba; the uterus here lies immediately beneath the integuments; the intestines are usually pressed towards each side; and therefore when the incision is made on one side they frequently protrude, a circumstance which rarely happens when it is made in the linea alba, except perhaps towards the end of the operation. In the linea alba we have only to cut through the external integuments in order to reach the uterus, while at the side, we have to cut through considerable layers of muscle.

Previous to operating, the rectum and the bladder should be emptied, particularly the latter, because it is desirable to carry the incision of the abdominal integuments, for reasons just given, as near as possible to the symphysis pubis (viz. an inch and a half,) which otherwise would endanger the safety of the bladder. The experience of later years proves decidedly that three intelligent assistants are necessary, “two to prevent the protrusion of the intestines, and a third to remove the placenta and fœtus.” (Neue Zeitschrift für Geburtskunde, band iii. heft 1. 1835.) We are convinced, that the success of the operation depends more upon carefully preventing the slightest protrusion of any portion of the intestines, and excluding all access of the external air than upon any other cause, for by this means alone can we save the patient from the dangerous peritonitis which is so apt to follow. The two assistants, whose duty it is to support the abdominal parietes and keep the edges of the wound closely pressed against the uterus, should be furnished with napkins or sponges soaked in oil in order instantly to cover any coil of intestine which may protrude, and press it back as quickly as possible; it is to this that the great success of the Cæsarean operation in later years is chiefly owing.

The incision in point of length varies from five to six, seven, or more inches, beginning at about two to four inches below the navel, and terminating at rather less than that distance above the symphysis pubis. The peritoneum is usually divided with a bistoury and director, and the wound through the uterus made an inch or two shorter than that of the abdominal integuments. If, on dividing the uterine parietes, the placenta presents, it must be separated, and removed as quickly as possible to one side, the membranes ruptured, and the child extracted; after which the uterus rapidly contracts, and thus prevents all fear of hæmorrhage: for this reason the sooner the child is removed the better, as otherwise the uterus is apt to contract upon a portion of it when passing through the wound, and thus retain it. It is desirable to remove the membranes as far as possible, especially from the os uteri, to allow of a free discharge from the uterus per vaginam. No sutures are needed for the uterine incision: the contractions of the organ not only diminish its length, but generally bring its edges into sufficiently close contact.

Some discrepancy of opinion has existed respecting the treatment of the external wound: sutures are of course the most secure means of retaining the edges in apposition, but they produce great suffering, and, from taking up a good deal of time, delay the closing of the abdominal wound more or less; whereas, straps of sticking plaster are applied much quicker and without any suffering to the patient. To do this most effectually it will be advisable to arrange them under the loins previous to the operation: they should be from five to six feet long, and the ends may be rolled up until wanted; the wound can thus be instantly closed and in the most secure manner. Where the operator finds it necessary to use sutures, he must avoid puncturing the peritoneum as far as possible: the lower inch of the wound should be left open to allow any matter to drain out, and the whole dressed according to the common rules of surgery. The patient should be placed upon her side with the knees bent to relax the abdominal parietes. A grain of the hydrochlorate of morphia has been given in these cases with the best effects, having procured sleep and allayed the disposition to spasmodic coughing and vomiting, which so frequently exists after the operation.